Welcome! This forum has over 180,000 posts and 12,000 before and after photos going back several years. To research a topic or physician, click on "Search" and enter the name.

You are currently a guest with limited access. By joining our FREE community you can post on this forum, reply privately to other members and or create your own profile, blog and photo album. Registration is easy, private and free so Join Today!

If you have any problems with the registration or login process, please contact us. If you are new please visit our FAQ.

Recently, one of the members in an online hairloss community I participate in reported that he had the RU58841, from 2 of the 3 big suppliers, 'tested'.

He claims that both samples showed to be genuine RU58841 with little impurities.

One companies RU was, reportedly, more pure then the other, but both had small traces of impurities.

This caused a lot of discussion among many of the members, and led to concern over the precursors used in the synthesis of RU 58841 by the over seas labs. which produce the compound.

Due to a number of inquiries from concerned users, regarding the purity of their RU58841, a North American supplier (who, as far as we can tell, buys RU from over seas and resells it) has stopped selling at this time until they do their own tests for purity.

The poster did not actually post the results of the study and the members have been left to take him at his word. Granted, he is a RU58841 user so has little incentive to report anything other then what he feels to be the truth, but until he can provide what ever data he gathered to make his claim it is still up in the air.

A number of users have discontinued RU58841 for the time being for fear that the impurities may be hazardous to their health.

Personally, i have lowered my dose and applied every other day instead of 5 day/week.

Not sure if any users on this board use RU58841, but if there are any I thought it may be of interest to them (if they don't already know).

The effectiveness of RU58841 has been speculated, by it creators, to be >/ the effectiveness of finasteride. Note though, that RU58841 does not have the same method of action as its azasteroid cousins, fin and dut, in the sense that it does not inhibit the 5AR type 1 or 2. Instead, it has a high affinity for the androgen receptors and competes with DHT to bind with them.

It is important to understand that this is an experimental compound and has not gone through the years of rigorous testing that the single AA treatment for androgenic alopacia has gone through. That, and the somewhat shady nature of procuring the compound, should make any prospective users think long and hard before considering it as a treatment. The bottom line, the stuff has not been approved for human use, although its effectiveness as an AGA treatment is undeniable.

If anyone has any other question please feel free to post and I'll do the best to answer them.

I remember years ago this being talked of as actually regrowing a full head of hair, but for some reason the pharmaceutical company didn't continue researching it (odd considering, if true, it would be trillions of $$$). Now people are actually using it, has anybody seen any results? does it actually work?

I remember years ago this being talked of as actually regrowing a full head of hair, but for some reason the pharmaceutical company didn't continue researching it (odd considering, if true, it would be trillions of $$$). Now people are actually using it, has anybody seen any results? does it actually work?

I think anyone who made the claim that it could regrow a full head of hair is greatly mistaken. Anti androgens don't 're grow' hair. At best, follicles that may have recently undergone miniaturization past the point of producing cosmetically significant hairs may be brought back to life, so to speak, by the cessation of the androgen stimuli.

Even castrates don't regrow much, if any, hair. Anti androgens have shown to be very effective of stopping further hairloss, or follicle damage, but not to great in terms of regrowth.

The reason(s) why RU58841 was never brought to market has been a complete mystery. All signs points to it as being a very effective topical anti androgen and the most convincing speculative theory has to do with money.

The makers of the drug described its effectiveness as a stand alone treatment to be comparable to, and perhaps a bit better then, finasteride. Given the cost, hundred of millions, to have a drug FDA approved it is easy to see why one would decide it wouldn't be worth it considering there is already a drug on the market which produces comparable results and is significantly more easy to use. People, myself included, would much rather swallow a pill every morning or night then cover the top of their scalp in a liquid.

Also consider the fact that Merck was disappointed with the sales of Propecia, the numbers are underwhelming, and upjohn was equally disappointed with the sales of minoxidil, perhaps the market for hairloss is not as big as us, the online hair community, perceives it to be...I'm getting a bit speculative here.

I think anyone who made the claim that it could regrow a full head of hair is greatly mistaken. Anti androgens don't 're grow' hair. At best, follicles that may have recently undergone miniaturization past the point of producing cosmetically significant hairs may be brought back to life, so to speak, by the cessation of the androgen stimuli.

Even castrates don't regrow much, if any, hair. Anti androgens have shown to be very effective of stopping further hairloss, or follicle damage, but not to great in terms of regrowth.

The reason(s) why RU58841 was never brought to market has been a complete mystery. All signs points to it as being a very effective topical anti androgen and the most convincing speculative theory has to do with money.

The makers of the drug described its effectiveness as a stand alone treatment to be comparable to, and perhaps a bit better then, finasteride. Given the cost, hundred of millions, to have a drug FDA approved it is easy to see why one would decide it wouldn't be worth it considering there is already a drug on the market which produces comparable results and is significantly more easy to use. People, myself included, would much rather swallow a pill every morning or night then cover the top of their scalp in a liquid.

Also consider the fact that Merck was disappointed with the sales of Propecia, the numbers are underwhelming, and upjohn was equally disappointed with the sales of minoxidil, perhaps the market for hairloss is not as big as us, the online hair community, perceives it to be...I'm getting a bit speculative here.

This is very well thought out! The only thing I can add is that I believe Propecia sales are lower than expected only because there is the option of quartering the much cheaper Proscar.

Good point RCWest. Since proscar was out before propecia but both owned and marketed by merck, I wonder if they ever looked at sales for proscar in the years prior and observed any increase in sales since propecia came to the market (and any fluctuations in the rated of BPH accounted for).

I would also venture to guess that those "in the know" already had strong suspicions that finasteride would be a viable treatment for MPB and we somehow procuring proscar.

I dunno, once again this is speculation outside of the realm of MPB science, but still kind of interesting.